Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Sh. Tejinder Singh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 26 February, 2018

                                  1

                        IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER
                        KUMAR
       ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI

                                               Decided on: 26.02.2018

        C. R. No. :137/18 of 24.02.2018

        Sh. Tejinder Singh
        S/o Sh. K. S. Chawla,
        R/o 21/60, Old Rajinder Nagar,
        New Delhi                              .....Petitioner

        Versus


        State (NCT of Delhi)                   .....Respondent

                            JUDGMENT

By   way   of   present   petition,   petitioner   herein   has challenged   order   dated   09.02.2018   passed   by   Learned Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 187/17 registered at PS Rajinder Nagar.

2. Vide   impugned   order,   learned   Metropolitan Magistrate has allowed application filed on behalf of the State / 2 IO   permitting   the   IO   to   get   voice   sampling   test   of   accused­ petitioner, conducted at FSL, Rohini.

3. Learned counsel for accused­ petitioner submits that impugned   order   is   against   law,   as   no   law   permits   any Metropolitan Magistrate to get conducted voice sample  test of accused.

4. Learned     Metropolitan  Magistrate   has  already taken into consideration decisions by Hon'ble Apex Court in  State of Bombay   v.   Kathi   Kalu   Oghad,   AIR   1961   SC   1808,  CBI   vs. Abdul  Karim Ladsab  Telgi  2005 Crl.  L.  J.  2868 and  Selvi  v. State of Karnataka 2010 (7) 2 SCC 263.  Learned Addl. PP has justified the impugned order. 

Learned   Metropolitan   Magistrate   has   taken   into consideration   submission   made   on   behalf   of   the   accused­ petitioner. 

The settled law in Selvi's case's (Supra) is to prevail and this is not in dispute. 

3

5. Having   regard   to   the   prosecution   version   which necessitated comparison of voice sampling test, Court does not find   any   illegality   or   irregularity   in   the   impugned   order particularly when it has been clarified in the same order that in case accused opts not to give his consent for such a test, same may   lead   to   drawing   of   adverse   inference   against   him   during trial.     Even  otherwise,   test,   may  also   help   the   petitioner  As  a result, this revision petition is hereby dismissed.

6. Trial   Court   record   be   returned.     File   of   revision   be consigned to Record Room.

  

Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by NARINDER on this 26th day of February, 2018 NARINDER KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2018.02.28 16:35:13 +0530 (NARINDER KUMAR)        SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS - 02 (CENTRAL)  TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI